onrc gap analysis - home | nz transport agency · gap analysis project plan https: ... prepared by...

of 15

Project Brief

ONRC Gap Analysis

(Updated March 2016)

Document control

File name File location Document date

Gap Analysis Project Plan https://teams.at.govt.nz/sites/ams/ONRC Draft 18 Sept

Updated March 2016

Date

Prepared by Auckland Transport (AT) Sept 2015

Reviewed by AT Assets Group Sept 2015

Recommended by Endorsed by AT Working Group Sept 2015

Approved by Approved by AT Governance Group

Nov 2015

https://teams.at.govt.nz/sites/ams/ONRC

of 15

Table of Contents 1. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 3

Project governance............................................................................................................ 4

Overview of deliverables ................................................................................................... 4

2. Review/ complete measurement of network performance .............................................. 5

Review classification and splits (urban/rural, sealed/unsealed) ......................................... 5

Background .................................................................................................................... 5

Tasks ............................................................................................................................. 5

Complete measurement of network performance .............................................................. 5

Background .................................................................................................................... 5

Tasks ............................................................................................................................. 5

Outputs .............................................................................................................................. 5

Risks and exclusions ......................................................................................................... 6

3. Assessment of gaps between current and ONRC levels of service ................................ 7

Assess service level gaps relative to ONRC targets .......................................................... 7

Verify a sample of Level of Service gaps ........................................................................... 7

Summarise and present results ......................................................................................... 7

Outputs .............................................................................................................................. 7

Risks and exclusions ......................................................................................................... 7

4. Develop strategies to close LOS gaps ........................................................................... 8

Identify investment needs to close identified gaps ............................................................. 8

Assess benefits of closing gaps ......................................................................................... 8

Develop a recommended strategy and timeframe to close gaps ........................................ 9

Outputs .............................................................................................................................. 9

5. Develop maintenance and renewals programme for draft RLTP .................................. 10

Convert the recommended strategy to a 10 year draft budget ......................................... 10

Document the strategic rationale and benefits of the recommended budget .................... 10

Outputs ............................................................................................................................ 10

Risks and exclusions ....................................................................................................... 10

Attachment 1: Details of performance measures ................................................................. 11

of 15

1. Purpose

This brief sets out the scope of works to develop a maintenance and renewals programme which is based on fit for purpose levels of service as defined by the One Network Road Classification (ONRC). This is the next step in the process of integrating ONRC into AT’s planning, management, financial and delivery processes, a long term process which is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1: ONRC 3-yearly process

Key tasks are:

1. Review/ summarise network classification and performance

1.1. Review ONRC classification and splits (urban/rural, sealed/unsealed)

1.2. Complete measurement of network performance

2. Assess gaps between current and ONRC Level of Service

2.1. Assess service level gaps relative to ONRC targets (under or over)

2.2. Verify a sample of Level of Service gaps with suitable validation techniques

2.3. Summarise and present results

3. Recommend a strategy and timeframe to close gaps

3.1. Identify investment needs to close identified gaps

3.2. Assess benefits of closing gaps

3.3. Develop a recommended strategy and timeframe to close gaps

4. Develop a maintenance and renewals programme for draft 2018 RLTP

4.1. Convert the recommended strategy to a 10 year draft budget

4.2. Document the strategic rationale and benefits of the recommended budget

Classify the network

Measure network

performance

Assess gaps between

current and ONRC levels

of service

Recommend strategy and timeframe to close gaps

Develop maintenance and renewals programme

for draft 2018 RLTP

Engage with funders,

stakeholders and the public

(RLTP/LTP consultation)

Business Case Asset

Management Plan 2018

Deliver changes

Specify treatments and work quantities (Forward

Works Programme)

focus of this brief

of 15

Project governance

The governance and approval of all AT ONRC project outputs, including this Gap Analysis, is the responsibility of the ONRC Governance Group, comprising representatives from the Infrastructure, Finance and Strategy & Planning groups within AT. The Governance Group is supported by a Working Group that includes NZTA representation.

Overview of deliverables

This project will deliver, to the standard required by the ONRC Governance Group:

1. A summary of network characteristics and performance, by 31 March 2016

2. An analysis and presentation of Level of Service gaps, by 30 June 2016

3. A recommended strategy to close gaps, with costs and benefits, by 30 Sept 2016

4. A maintenance and renewals programme in the format needed for the RLTP, with accompanying report demonstrating how Business Case Approach requirements were met, by 31 Dec 2016

This work provides the essential foundation for:

Engagement with funders, stakeholders and the public, through the RLTP/LTP consultation in early 2018

A detailed annual / indicative 3-year maintenance programme and renewals forward works programme, effective from 1 July 2018

A review of relevant sections of delivery contracts, identifying changes needed to incorporate ONRC requirements, in time for the retender of the South road maintenance contract in 2018

of 15

2. Review/ complete measurement of network performance

Review classification and splits (urban/rural, sealed/unsealed)

Background

ONRC has three elements, the first of which is classification of roads based on their function in the national network. This task is complete, and an ONRC carriageway table, comprising data from RAMM, GIS and other sources, at the carriageway segment level, will be provided for review. Data includes:

ONRC classification Whether freight, tourism or PT criteria were used to alter the default classification Urban and rural (whether roads have a speed limit of 70 km/h or more) Whether roads are located within the Rural Urban Boundary as defined by Auckland

Council, noting that some carriageway segments lie along/ across the boundary Maintenance area (North, South, Central/West and Hauraki Gulf Islands) Pavement type Carriageway segment length, lane km, and vehicle km travelled The status of carriageway segments within the Regional Freight Network and the

Unitary Plan

Tasks

Prepare an Auckland Network ONRC Analysis report, based on the ONRC carriageway table, which briefly summarises key findings and includes (as appendices) details of the methodologies used.

Present the report to the Working Group, and make changes as needed.

Complete measurement of network performance

Background

The second element of ONRC is a set of performance measures, along with targets which specify customer levels of service for the different categories of road. An initial assessment of these performance measures was done for Auckland in March 2015, using data for the 2013/14 year.

Not all of the ONRC performance measures are relevant to this gap analysis. A table summarising which measures need to be assessed as part of this project is included as Attachment 1.

Tasks

Confirm/ review 2013/2014 performance for relevant measures as set out in Attachment 1

Where practical and feasible, capture missing information/ perform missing analysis

Establish 2014/15 performance for relevant measures

Present to the Working Group and incorporate their input

Outputs

A summary of network characteristics and performance, by 31 March 2016

of 15

Risks and exclusions

Small errors of definition at this stage can lead to large discrepancies in final results. Gaining the confidence of the working group that the analysis is correct and useful is crucial.

The scope of this work excludes changes to either the ONRC classification itself or to RAMM or GIS data. Where issues are identified they should be noted in an appendix to the report, but resource should not be expended on trying to resolve these issues.

of 15

3. Assessment of gaps between current and ONRC levels of service

The third and final element of ONRC is to work towards nationally consistent customer levels of service. Customer levels of service define the fit-for-purpose outcomes expected for each category of road in terms of safety, accessibility, amenity, reliability and resilience.

This task builds on the ONRC carriageway table and the ONRC performance report to assess gaps between actual and ONRC levels of service (under or over)

Assess service level gaps relative to ONRC targets

Undertake an assessment of service level gaps (under and over), considering: o Network-wide averages for Urban/ Rural roads o By maintenance area o Other categories relevant to understanding the data

Add to the ONRC carriageway table, additional fields summarising whether carriageways are under/ over defined Levels of Service

Verify a sample of Level of Service gaps

Develop a programme of validation, using suitable techniques

With the assistance of asset/ area experts verify the conclusions of the gap analysis.

Summarise and present results

Develop a methodology/ format to summarise and present results

Present to the Working Group and incorporate their input

Outputs

The output of this work will be:

An analysis and presentation of Level of Service gaps, by 30 June 2016

All supporting spreadsheets and calculations


This is the highest risk phase of the project.

Where analysis does not support strongly held preconceptions, most people will question the analysis, not their preconceptions. There are such a wide range of preconceptions as to whether AT spends too much or too little on road maintenance and renewals, that whatever the outcome of the gap analysis, it will be subject to intense scrutiny.

of 15

4. Develop strategies to close LOS gaps

The establishment of a gap between current LOS and the targets set in ONRC is only part of the information needed to support a decision to invest (or disinvest). This part of the brief establishes the indicative benefits and costs of closing identified gaps, in order to inform a final decision.

Both AT and NZTA have a role in setting Levels of Service, as set out in the table below.

Table 1: AT and ONRC decision making

AT ONRC LOS LOS

Gap Analysis indicates current LOS below ONRC targets

Gap Analysis indicates current LOS above ONRC targets

AT considers the benefits of investing in a higher Level of Service outweigh the costs

AT could choose to invest to achieve ONRC LOS and NZTA is likely to co-invest

AT could choose to invest in a higher LOS but NZTA would not co-invest (100% local share)

AT considers the costs of investing in a higher Level of Service outweigh the benefits

AT could decide to fall short of ONRC LOS if other expenditure is deemed a higher priority.

AT and NZTA could negotiate an agreed disinvestment programme. This may require public consultation.

Identify investment needs to close identified gaps

Using existing AT and NZTA tools and methodologies, including the AT Unit Rates:

For assets identified in the previous phase as having a Level of Service lower than the ONRC target, calculate the cost of closing the gap over a 10 year period

For assets identified as having a Level of Service higher than the ONRC target, calculate the potential cost savings from closing the gap over a 10 year period

Consider/ compare other options (for example, only closing half the gap in 10 years)

Summarise the key findings of the investment needs analysis. This will form part one of the strategy to close LOS gaps.

Assess benefits of closing gaps

Using existing AT and NZTA tools and methodologies, including AT’s Benefits Management Process and the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual:

Describe the do-nothing option

Describe the benefits (and disbenefits) of closing LOS gaps

Where applicable, quantify these using the Economic Evaluation Manual

Consider changes in the timing of benefits, depending on the timeframe to close gaps (5 year, 10 year or 30 year)

Summarise the key findings of the benefits analysis. This will form part two of the strategy to close LOS gaps.

of 15

Develop a recommended strategy and timeframe to close gaps

Develop three or more investment scenarios, representing investment above/ below/ at current budgets, and document for each of these:

The time period to close LoS gaps

Priorities, and how priorities were set

Cost/ affordability of renewals and maintenance

Risk and transition issues

Choose one recommended strategy, with reasons.

Outputs

A recommended strategy to close gaps, with costs and benefits, by 30 Sept 2016

All supporting spreadsheets and calculations

of 15

5. Develop maintenance and renewals programme for draft RLTP

Strategies for transport investment from 2018/2019 will be decided through the 2018 Regional Land Transport Plan, which will consider and prioritise all AT investments including maintenance and renewals investments.

Developing the AMP team’s input to the RLTP is a core function of the whole team; this brief is technical work in support of this process and does not cover management of the process itself.

Convert the recommended strategy to a 10 year draft budget

Develop a 10 year proposed budget for maintenance and renewals, in the format required as input to the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

Compare and contrast the proposed budget with previous years and with years 4-10 of the 2015 RLTP, including:

o By asset type o By maintenance area o Maintenance vs renewals expenditure

Document the strategic rationale and benefits of the recommended budget

Provide documentation which verifies that the proposed programme: o Meets the priorities and process requirements for the 2018 RLTP o Is optimised - delivers the right activities at the right time for the right price o Was developed using the Business Case approach, and applying ONRC

Summarise proposed significant changes to current maintenance and renewal programmes

Outputs

A maintenance and renewals programme in the format needed for the RLTP, by 31 Dec 2016

An accompanying report documenting the strategic rationale and benefits of the recommended budget, by 31 Dec 2016


Some of the RLTP requirements are not yet set, so this section of the brief is subject to review as project planning for the RLTP progresses. For example, a 30 year maintenance and renewals budget may be required.

of 15

Attachment 1: Details of performance measures

CLoS Outcome Measure Brief Description

Reporting

Required?

Already Reported

31 March 15?Clearly defined measure? Data exists ?

Analysis tools

available?

Relevant to

maintenance and

renewals?

AT

Value for Money OM1 AMP No No No n/a n/a No

Safety OM1 S&F crash trend Yes Yes Yes Yes Not yet Yes

OM2 Collective risk Yes Yes Yes YesYes once crashes

analysedYes

OM3 Personal risk Yes Yes Yes YesYes once crashes

analysedYes

Resilience OM1 Journeys impacted No No Yes Probably Not yet Yes

OM2 Journeys not made No No Yes Probably Not yet Yes

Amenity OM1 STE Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

OM2 Average Roughness Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Travel Time Reliability OM1 Variability of journey times Yes for

regionals &

sample of

arterials

Yes for sum of

nominated routesYes

Yes for regionals &

sample of arterialsYes

Not as defined -

travel speed is more

relevant

AT has been reporting reliability on nominated routes

since 2010. More relevant to the Netw ork Operating

Plan than the AMP.

OM2 Bus journeys

NoYes for whole

network

Yes, but not clear how to break

down by ONRC classificationYes Yes No

Bus journey times w ould be more relevant than

departure times

Accessibility OM1 Access to PTNo

Yes for whole

network


down by ONRC classificationYes Yes No

Access to frequent public transport w ould be more

relevant than access to a bus stop

OM2(a) Truck Travel Exposure - Class 1No Sort of No

OM2(b) Truck Travel Exposure - 50 Max (and HPMVs)No Sort of No

OM3 Roads operated to facilitate journeys (per

1800v/lane/hr) NoYes on nominated

routesYes

Yes on nominated

rotuesYes Not as defined

AT has been reporting v/lane/hr on nominated routes

since 2010, but is shifting to a multimodal measure

Safety PM1 Permanent Hazards identified Yes* No Yes Yes Not yet If >70 km/h* for roads outside the urban area w ith speed limits

>=70 km/h

PM2 COPTTM implemented at worksites No No Yes Yes Not yet Yes

PM3 Sight Distances (vegetation) Yes* No Yes Yes Not yet If >70 km/h* for roads outside the urban area w ith speed limits

>=70 km/h

PM4 Street lighting No No No

PM5 S&F crash trend per skid resistanceYes Yes Yes Yes Not yet No*

*Trends not statistically signif icant. CAS paramaters

need to be more clearly defined.

PM6 S&F crash trend per intersections Yes Yes Yes Yes Not yet No* *Trends not statistically signif icant.

PM7 Communities at risk register No Sort of * No n/a n/a No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM8 Hazardous faults Yes* No Yes Yes Not yet Yes* for roads outside the urban area w ith speed limits

>=70 km/h

PM9 Roading service requests responseYes* Yes*


down by ONRC classificationMaybe Not yet No

* A single % for the w hole netw ork. Requests for

service do not correlate w ell w ith actual need so

spatial analysis is not a priority

PM10 Footpath network condition Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Not very * A single % for the w hole netw ork

PM11 Dangerous hazards on cycleways No No No Maybe Not yet Maybe

PM12 Areas with surface friction deficiencies Yes* No No Maybe Not yet Maybe* If feasible. AT is developing a Skid Resistence

Strategy but timelines may not align

PM13 S&F injuries to vulnerable users Yes Yes Yes Yes Not yet No* *Trends not statistically signif icant.

PM14 Restraining devices Yes* No Yes Yes Not yetFor >70 km/h roads

outside urban area

* for roads outside the urban area w ith speed limits

>=70 km/h

PM15 Roadside safety zones Yes* No Yes Yes Not yetFor >70 km/h roads

outside urban area

* for roads outside the urban area w ith speed limits

>=70 km/h

PM16 KiwiRap Yes* No Yes Yes Not yetFor >70 km/h roads

outside urban area

Urban Kiw iRap under development

Resilience PM1 Resilience Plan No Sort of * No n/a n/a No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM2 Journeys lost per lack of pro-active maintenance No No Maybe No

PM3 Alternative routesNo No

Yes but only affects a few rural

roads

PM4 Emergency Procedure and Response Plan No Sort of * No n/a n/a No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM5 Customer advice of changed travel conditions No No Yes Maybe Not yet No

PM6 PT Customer advice of changed travel conditionsNo No


down by ONRC classificationMaybe Not yet No

Amenity PM1 Ride comfort Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PM2 Truck ride deficienciesNo No Yes Yes Yes

On identified freight

network

PM3 Ride comfort - Unsealed Roads Yes * No No Maybe Yes Yes * Only if data readily available

PM4 Ride comfort - Unsealed Roads Yes * No No Maybe Yes Yes * Only if data readily available

PM5 Aesthetic defects (litter etc) No No No

Travel Time Reliability PM1 Plan to co-ordinate activities and events No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM2 Delays due to planned activities not to exceed x%

of typical travel timeNo No No No More relevant to Netow kr Operating Plan than AMP

PM4 Customers informed within x minutes of change in

travel timeNo No No No More relevant to Netow kr Operating Plan than AMP

PM5 Prior notification where delays exceed 20min No No No No More relevant to Netow kr Operating Plan than AMP

PM6 Network Operating Plan No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

Accessibility PM1 Wayfinding policy No No No

PM2 Guidance and signs compliant with MOTSAM etc No No No

PM3 Land use planning - access requirements No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM4 Land use planning - access to adjoining land No No No

PM5 Road hierarchy priority No No No

PM6 Bus stop signage No No Yes Yes Yes No

PM7 Network sensible maintenance and operations No No No

PM8 Manage active road user demands No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM9 Manage CARs No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM10 Manage events and Road Opening Notices No Sort of * No No * Sort of = AT reported yes (w e do have a plan)

PM11 Expanding HPMV access No No No

Efficiency EM1(a) Pavement Rehabilitation quantity - lane km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM1(b) Pavement Rehabilitation quantity - m2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM2(a) Chipseal resurfacing quantity - lane km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM2(b) Chipseal resurfacing quantity -m2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM3(a) Asphalt resurfacing quantity - lane km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM3(b) Asphalt resurfacing quantity -m2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM4(a) Unsealed roads - metalling - km Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM4(b) Unsealed roads - metalling - m3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM5 All Significant Works ($) No No No

EM6(a) Average life achieved - pavement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM6(b) Average life achieved - surfaces Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM7 Future Intent - % planned to reactive No No No

EM8 Pavement Rehabilitation ($) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM9 AC Resurfacing ($) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM10 Routine Maintenance ($) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM11 Unsealed road metalling ($) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EM12 All significant works ($) No No No

EM13(a) $/lane/km Yes Yes No Yes Yes Maybe

EM13(b) $/vkt/km Yes Yes No Yes Yes Maybe

EM13(c) $/tonne/km No No No

AT claimed 100% access as AT does not legally

prohibit access - but a more practical definition w ould

give a low er value. Does this scale of vehicle need

access to the w hole netw ork?

onrc gap analysis - home | nz transport agency · gap analysis project plan https: ... prepared by...

Documents